On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:48 PM, T. V. Raman wrote:
two suggestions:
1) accept paths like "./foo.html" as local links.
This is now allowed.
2) Augment C-c C-l to react to file: by providing filename
completion relative to the working directory.
This is hard and therefore not yet implement
On Apr 13, 2008, at 10:32 PM, T. V. Raman wrote:
file:// urls are already designed to be platform independent.
So an org file should never carry in it a path like a\\b\\c.html
-- we should always use a/b/c.html
since that's the syntax used by relative URLs.
Yes, but while an Org file is still
file:// urls are already designed to be platform independent.
So an org file should never carry in it a path like a\\b\\c.html
-- we should always use a/b/c.html
since that's the syntax used by relative URLs.
> "Carsten" == Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Carsten> Hi Raman, On
Hi Raman,
On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:48 PM, T. V. Raman wrote:
two suggestions:
1) accept paths like "./foo.html" as local links.
I will look into this. The problem is the system dependence
of file names, so I am not sure what a good solution would be
that would work on Windows as well as on Un
two suggestions:
1) accept paths like "./foo.html" as local links.
2) Augment C-c C-l to react to file: by providing filename
completion relative to the working directory.
The emacs binding to the w3m browser does this if you type file: in the
minibuffer
when prompted for a URL.
> "Carsten
H,
this is *such* a good idea, that I will implement this retroactively
into all versions since ... 2.0 or so? Abracadabra! Done.
In fact, it has been working just so for a very long time.
file:foo.html -> href="foo.html"
file:foo.org-> href="foo.html"
The second line assumes that t
I think writing http:foo.html is a bad idea because typing that
string in other contexts is sort of meaningless as a URL.
Until now, everything one types in org-mode sort of has meaning
elsewhere. If you want it to look like a url in this case too
then I'd suggest file:foo.html -- rther than http:
On Apr 13, 2008, at 5:33 PM, T. V. Raman wrote:
I've not tried http:foo.html -- but I suggest doing that to
author a relative URL is a bad idea.
Can you explain why you think that this is a bad idea?
Educate me! What is wrong with writing http:foo.html ??
- Carsten
I tried ./foo.ht
I've not tried http:foo.html -- but I suggest doing that to
author a relative URL is a bad idea.
I tried ./foo.html and that didn't work either. One compromise
would be to get ./foo.html to link to a relative url, while
foo.html continues to link to a local anchor
> "Carsten" == Carsten Dom
On Apr 13, 2008, at 6:49 AM, T. V. Raman wrote:
Hi,
org-export turns links of the form
[[foo][link to relative url foo]]
ends up creating links of the form
...
this means that it becomes impossible to write hyperlinks that
are relative URLs.
Hi Raman,
the url goes into the first pair of s
Hi,
org-export turns links of the form
[[foo][link to relative url foo]]
ends up creating links of the form
...
this means that it becomes impossible to write hyperlinks that
are relative URLs.
--
Best Regards,
--raman
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
11 matches
Mail list logo
